Would the LORD LEAD someone to the SBC????

I can agree with what you say here to an extent. I would argue that the "blind loyalty" to the convention is a misnomer. Reason being: the resurgence. The resurgence took place b/c the pew people were not loyal to the point of blindness. I honestly believe if the resurgence had not taken place, most SB would have left the convention.

On a side note, I almost find it humorous to hear IFBers speak of blind loyalty. I know nothing of your personal history or preferences, but my years associated with IFB churches taught me such blind loyalty that to question an authority figure was to bring on the spiritual she-bears. The whole "divine blood" & KJVO theories are little more than displays of blind loyalty. Blind loyalty knows no denominational boundaries.

Again, I can agree with most of what you are saying here. My problem in this discussion is when we attempt to make the peripheral-central. I would suggest that the cardinal doctrines are very limited in number. Therefore I must allow for diversity on any issue beyond the essentials. If you want to discuss what is essential, I am willing.

Even in your example of inspiration and inerrancy, there is such a diverse opinion in the evangelical circle as to the exact definition of the word inerrancy that a dogmatic definition lends itself to the biases and beliefs one's own presuppositions. Don't get me wrong here, I believe in full inerrancy and spend much of my forum time on other sites debating its importance, but at the same time, I am not ready to keep CS Lewis or FF Bruce outside the evangelical circle b/c their view on inerrancy differs from mine.

Oranges and apples comparison. Early "new evangelicalism" was simply a return to the evangelical movement of the prior century. As I stated earlier, it has evolved into something different, but the earliest movement was an effort to combat protestant liberalism by returning to the evangelical roots of the Reformation.

How come every branch of fundamentalism calls itself the "historic" element? Once again, one can see why the term evangelical is so popular. If there is one term that is equally as undefined as evangelical, it has to be the term fundamentalist. If a fundamentalist is one that adheres to doctrines defined in The Fundamentals, count me in. However the term has evolved to include much more.

I would be very interested in seeing your demonstration of how the majority of the SBC falls outside the parameters of what it means to be a historic evangelical.

 

It is my understanding that the Lord will lead people to sound Bible-believing churches rather than to associations, conventions, and fellowships. This is not to say that a church could not participate in some kind of association and still be sound, just that the Lord's leadership will have no basis in such a consideration.

 

Pardon the lenght of this. I will try to shorten it and then cease from such long posts. I love this topic however because I think it is so important to the maintenance of a pure bride for the Savior. It is of immense historical significance.

I hope that is the case.

I agree with that. You obviously don't know much about me ... That whole divine blood and KJVO stuff is enough to make me lose my dinner ... Unfortunately there are a lot of "fundamentalists" who do exaclty what you say and I would say the same thing to them that you would -- Get in line with Scripture.

CS Lewis had some other issues besides this one. However, I am not of the opinion that inerrancy is as slippery as it might seem. People don't reject inerrnacy because they don't understand it or because of the mountain of evidence against it. They reject it for other reasons (like personal beliefs). The downfall at Fuller came as a result of this issue, largely (was not this the reason for Black Saturday?). The fundamentalists were too narrow minded for the academics. Since FTS wanted academic respectability, this was one doctrine that could be "redefined." Hence you had people arguing for limited inerrancy -- which is like being a little bit pregnant -- either you are or you aren't. IT wasn't long before other issues followed inerrancy.

I totally disagree. Early new evangelicalism (c. late 1960s) was a departure from the evangelical movement of the prior century. Until the first decade of the 1900s, there were two categories, something Machen indicated in his book "Christianity and Liberalism." There was no third category. Ockenga's concern was that fundamentalism was becoming socially and culturally irrelevant because of its firm commitment to evangelical doctrine and its emphasis on heart change rather than social involvement. He was concerned that the church was becoming marginalized and negative. He proposed that there be a "new evangelicalism" that was more socially involved, more academically respectable, less separatistic. That was not the issue of the prior century.

I don't think it evolved to include much more. I think recent years (last 50 or so) it has devolved from its original meaning, becoming something that historically it never was. Early evangelicalism was devoted to a militant stand for doctrine and exposure and separation from those who denied it. It was laid out much of the what those fundamentals were in the booklets of the same name. Through the years, fundamentalism unfortunately more about standards than about truth.

In 1957, Ockenga outline the following differences between NE (new evangelicalism) and F(fundamentalism) in a press release.

1) NE was willing to handle the social problems that F evaded.
2) NE had a change of strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration.
3) NE was willing to meet intellectual problems in the framework of modern learning.
4) NE practiced a positive proclamation of the truth in distinction from error without delving into personality involved in the error.

I am not convinced these were all valid reasons and they failed as the last 50 years have shown. The church has not had great social impact. Infiltration has resulted in the weakening of doctrine rather than the strengthening of it. The framework of modern learning has created unbelief becuase it was not driven by Scriptural commitments. Hence there is not one major school or seminary that has remained true to it doctrinal heritage. Failure to expose error resulted in a tolerance of error and hence a welcoming into the church of error.

Later on in 1978, Ockenga gave different reasons (in Evangelical Roots, edited by Kantzer [who I believe Thomas said is his uncle]). Here Ockenga said, 1) Fundamentalists were not Christian in their attitude of defending the faith. 2) Fundamentalists had a wrong strategy, i.e., separation in the interests of a pure church; 3) Fundamentalist social theory was governed by dispensational eschatology and thus was too pessimistic about the world. Other wrote attacks on fundamentalism (e.g. Carnell).

John Woodbridge, son of Charles Woodbridge (from FTS in the old days who warned about the problems of the new evangelicalism) was asked if he thought that his father was right. He said he was. It was an admission by a NE that the philosophy of NE had failed. The question is, we have 50 years of laboratory experiements that show NE to be a failing philosophy. Why continue with it?

However, we are a bit off track about the SBC. You continue,

At the very root level, a failure to separate from unbelief and apostasy and from disobedient brothers. Failure to separate resulted in the problems that necessitated a resurgence. Had the SBC churches kept more control and more awareness of the problems involved, such events probably would have never taken place. It was a lack of accountability to the churches that caused the problem. As I said however, the resurgence has given hope that the SBC will return to its more fundamental roots. Only time will tell.

I again must run with this brief discussion.

 

There is a BIG difference between KJV and NIV; and so you know what it is-the KJV is the inspired Word of God that has been passed down since it was written(men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost). The NIV,on the other hand, gives the "simple" meaning and translations.That doesn't make it right. Gods Word is Gods Word,and man has no call to tamper with it. Have you ever looked at the differences between versions. They completely remove verses, and change things to stuff that is "easier to comprehend". I'm not saying that the Lord couldn't work on your heart about being SB; but changing Bible translations or going to a church that does is not going to help you grow spiritually. Charity

 

This has been a very interesting discussion on the history of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. For me, as a fundamentalist, I have benefitted greatly by attending a fundamental Baptist seminary and taking a class on the history of fundamentalism. I was never taught this history in my fundamental Bible college education due in large part to the fact that few of the books I have read on this topic existed at the time I was in college. I am glad that fundamental Baptist seminaries are emphasizing our history. It certainly needs to be taught in our churches. Pastor Larry, thanks for sharing your insights on the topic.

As to my views on the SBC, most of the denominations saw the struggle between liberals and fundamentalists come to a head way back in the 1930s. In those cases the denomination and its machinery went to the liberals while fundamentalists were forced out. After being forced out, the fundamentalists started their own schools and developed new denominations (or in the case of Baptists, they decided denominations were inherently bad and became independent; developing fellowships or conventions instead).

The SBC is the exception in that the struggle with liberalism went on much longer. The struggle was more protracted because the liberals in the SBC seem not to have been as liberal, or at least not as radical about it, and the conservatives were tolerant rather than militant. Both sides felt that the institutions needed to be preserved rather than torn apart or lost altogether as had happened in other denominations.

Not having grown up in the SBC, I see no need to join. Frankly the IFB movement is too strong for us to join the SBC. IFBs have strong churches, colleges, seminaries, and mission boards. We have our faults. They tend to occur on our rightward flank with extreme views on the Bible (KJVOnlyism) and legalism.

I find it hard to believe that conservative SBCers stayed in the convention as long as they did. I don't know that I could have justified staying for myself, but since I never actually had to face the decision to leave, that is easy for me to say. I thank God for the change in the SBC in the last 10-20 years and applaud those who worked hard to turn things around. I hope the resurgence will be long-lasting and deeply rooted. My attitude toward SBCers is that I will work together with you when I can and seperately when I feel I must.

 

Thanks for speaking my mind, charity.

 

Perhaps you could give an example of an extra-Biblical law from an IFB church that was keeping you in bondage.

 

Brother Tony, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you have found it in a church that happens to be affiliated with the SBC than in the "SBC"? That is a broad statement that would mean all SBC people and churches love and that all IFB people and churches are legalistic and Pharisaical.

 

I find it unsettling to discuss all IFB churches and all SBC churches as if there is not the autonomy that at least partially defines being Baptist. In this small town there are 3 independent Baptist churches and each is very different in many way. I have observed the same is true in many SBC churches. The church I attend is very conservative and the pastor preaches from the KJV. I wish he'd use the NIV, but I don't press it, nor does he. The best reason to all use the same is simply unity, but to say that using a version other than KJV is heresy is beyond my comprehension. I have listened to pastor after pastor and sunday school teacher after teacher read to me a passage from the KJV and then spend 15 minutes explaining that in the "original Greek or Hebrew" this means.... just what I read in my NIV. It is just as wrong for me to be stubborn about the NIV, but you guys stuck on on your KJV..... Jesus was not a 16th century Englishman!

 

I've been a member of a "Southern Baptist" church all of my Christian life. I do not see that the movement of the SBC in either a more conservative or liberal direction has had any effect on the churches. The churches are all independent and autonomous and nothing the convention does is binding on any local church. The actions that the SBC takes are only binding on the institutions, agencies and commissions that the national convention operates, which is basically only six seminaries, two mission boards and a few "commissions". The state Baptist conventions operate the colleges and universities and most of the local organizations and they are independent and autonomous from the national convention. The SBC leadership has no authority to force churches to do anything, or to take any doctrinal or theological stance or position. Take the BFM2000, for example. This is the official doctrinal statement of the SBC and all of their missionaries and seminary professors have to sign it. But only about 5 percent of the churches and 20 percent of the state conventions have adopted it. My church uses the 1963 BFM as a guideline, but has written its own doctrinal and theological statement of beliefs.

The "Conservative Resurgence" was not some massive theological movement in the churches of the SBC. It was, and still is, a relatively small group of pastors, mainly of the huge churches, to win the offices of the SBC so that they could appoint their own church members as trustees of the SBC institutions. The greatest number of votes they ever garnered at an SBC annual meeting was 16,000, which was a quorum, but not even a majority, of the registered participants in the convention in Dallas in 1985 where it happened. Sixteen thousand out of a denomination of 16 million members with more than 45,000 churches nationwide is a very small percentage of participation.

Most Southern Baptists are generally pretty independent minded. My own church hasn't sent a single messenger to an SBC annual convention in fifteen years and if you look at the SBC's books, about 80 percent of the churches haven't done so in a decade. It is a denomination built on mission and ministry needs, not on theological and doctrinal conformity.

 

Finally an opportunity to Amen your post Joshua.
Thanks
Murph

 

Would God lead someone out of the bondage of legalism? Quite likely.

Rev. G

 

Without a doubt.

 

Sorry I have been so long responding. I have very little internet forum time right now. I will try and reply briefly to a few of your more pertinent points.

I can agree with your comments here. My primary point is that the inerrancy issue is just one where defining an evangelical is difficult to do. I am not sure everyone who defines inerrancy differently than I do needs to be banished from the evangelical circle. Inerrancy is an issue where the evidence must be weighed and considered. Even though I am a strict plenary, verbal full inspirationist (there's a title for you ), I believe I can make a strong argument for a more limited view of inerrancy than which I hold. I hold to inerrancy based upon my personal beliefs of God's nature, but w/o the original autographs it is difficult to speak with absolute dogmaticism as to how the Bible was given and received. For that reason, I am not going to oust those who hold a different view from the camp. Would I allow them to preach in my pulpit? Probably not (even though I would have a difficult time turning down an opportunity to have CS Lewis or Francis Schaeffer). Should they teach in our seminaries? No (of course there is a diversity of beliefs on the details of inerrancy even among full inerrantists). But should they be considered outside the evangelical circle? I am not ready to go there.

Again I concur with your main points. My primary emphasis here is that Ockenga's intent did not seem to be a division between evangelicalism and "new" evangelicalism. I believe he simply wanted to return evangelicalism to what it was originally intended to be and away from what it had become while closely linked to fundamentalism.

Without re-quoting your entire section here, I would simply suggest that fundamentalism was a subgroup of evangelicalism. What distinguished fundamentalists from other evangelicals was their strident opposition (thus Ockegna's points) to "modernism". As George Marsden states, fundamentalists were "militant anti-modernist evangelicals."

This opposition primarily found root in the issues of inerrancy and dispensationalism. B/c of the reaction of the Princetonians against Higher Criticism and the subsequent eschatological system Darby brought to the table, fundamentalism became marked by these two anti-modernist pillars.

However what happened is that fundamentalism also became marked by its militant spirit (almost from the beginning). With Riley and Machen at the helm, fundamentalists sought to purge Protestant denominations and institutions of their apostasy. When that failed, the movement became more grassroots.

From this development emerged the notion of seperation that has defined many modern fundamentalists. Militant seperation became a test of orthodoxy.

But in the 40's and 50's a group of young evangelicals (new evangelicals) emerged who rejected the extreme seperatism and emphasis on dispensationalism. Thus "fundamentalism" was divided into two primary camps: a) evangelicals (some who adopted the title "new E") and b) militant seperatists who claimed the fundamentalist title.

In the SBC, these two groups seemed to merge to reclaim a denomination that seemed destined for moderate theology and eventually theological liberalism. Inerrancy became the capstone battle cry for this group. And b/c fundamentalism evolved into a grassroots movement, this group took matters to the grassroots level. As a result, the resurgence transpired.

Here you show how your brand of fundamentalism is in line with the militant seperation described above which was not an original part of what it meant to be an evangelical. Thus I would maintain that the SBC is at the root level evangelical and not necessarily a New evangelical movement.

Great discussion by the way. Thanks. It sure beats a lot of the fluff that causes me to waste far more time than I can afford.